Replies

"The Domestic Dog went through specialized artificial adaption/gene manipulation in a very directed manner controlled by man and our understanding of character traits, so this really can’t be used as an argument for ‘quick macroevolution’"

Actually dogs and wolves are extremely similar genetically speaking. A much bigger difference exists between wolves/dogs and foxes (which can not interbreed). So unless you care to claim that foxes were artificially created by man you don't get out of the dilemma that your "microevolution" is occurring hundreds of times faster then what science accepts and therefore there is more then enough time in 3,500,000,000 years to account for all the diversity of life.

"biological limits"

Please exclaim the exact mechanism of this thing that you claim exists. How does it do what you claim it does, that is, how does it limit evolution to changes what you call micro evolutionary changes.

"The mathematics for KIND TRansforming mutations ( if it were even possible) refute your statement"

Please post your mathematical proof (math does have proofs :).

"I’m not ignoring that at all- the fact is that ‘benifical mutations’ take a very long time- too long for enough to accumulate before the negative wipe the species out altogether"

Seriously deleterious mutations are generally culled as they appear. You are clearly not understanding natural selection.

"and by the way, selective breeding cuases degredation from the original- not improvement- the wolf is still the ultimate predator- the coyote and domestic dogs are degredations"

How are you defining improvement. Coyotes exists in places wolves do not exactly because they are better adapted to that environment. They survive in drier climates on less food.

You are falling into the common misconception that there is a "best" state. Best is defined day by day by he demands of the environment and what is a "best" state one day can be detrimental the next.

"Quite hte gamble to take the chance that there might not be- don’t you think?"

No, I also don't expect there to be a Valhalla or 72 virgins waiting for me. Are you the least bit concerned that you might miss your 72 virgins? I think not. Although it would be kind of a bummer to find out I was wrong on the virgins.

"KINDS are explained in detail in the link I gave, and the evidence in nature and in biology and also in the fossil records supports KINDS just find"

OK, are starfish and urchins the same KIND? How about jellyfish and siphonophores, are they the same KIND? What about bacteria and archaea, same kind or not?

KIND s a useless word because it gives no rules by which it can be applied. It is a weasel word that lets you change the definition to fit your argument.

[[Actually dogs and wolves are extremely similar genetically speaking.]]

And? The dog is still inferior. not sure why you’d mention the simlarities as it goes right along with what I was saying

[[A much bigger difference exists between wolves/dogs and foxes (which can not interbreed). So unless you care to claim that foxes were artificially created by man you don’t get out of the dilemma that your “microevolution” is occurring hundreds of times faster then what science accepts and therefore there is more then enough time in 3,500,000,000 years to account for all the diversity of life.]]

again speciation is not a problem for microevolution- You missed the point- please reread what I wrote.

[[Please exclaim the exact mechanism of this thing that you claim exists. How does it do what you claim it does, that is, how does it limit evolution to changes what you call micro evolutionary changes.]]

Egads- read the fruitfly experiments it explains it fine. as well as other experiements

[[Please post your mathematical proof (math does have proofs :).]]

Chicago symposium- mathematics will find it for you.

[[How are you defining improvement. Coyotes exists in places wolves do not exactly because they are better adapted to that environment. They survive in drier climates on less food.]]

Yup they do, they are still a degredation from the original species no matter the survival rates. This is another favorite symantics game for evos trying to show how a particular species is more adapted for their environement and thus are ‘more advanced’ when infact they have degraded from the original species.

[[Seriously deleterious mutations are generally culled as they appear. You are clearly not understanding natural selection.]]

Yes, NDT- I’m an ignoramus- clearly, as I don’t understand that the overwhelming deleterious mutations far far outnumber the ‘neutral’ ones and severely hinder any attempts at new organ creation especially in light of of the biological parameter limits which prevent such from occuring & would thusly stymie natural selection working on the few ‘neutrals’ trying it’s best to move them along toward the lofty goal of macroevolution. Species have a hard enough time dealing with minor mutational mistakes en mass, let alone have to deal with major species kind altering ones even if it were possible-

[[Are you the least bit concerned that you might miss your 72 virgins? I think not.]]

No, and I’ll tell you why- because of hte personal relationship with The True God who is True to His word and takes personal interest in each of His own children- Muhammahd’s God doesn’t as they ignore God’s directive to accept Salvation through His Son which is a very real, Holy spirit confirming event should you decide to take the leap of faith.

[[OK, are starfish and urchins the same KIND? How about jellyfish and siphonophores, are they the same KIND? What about bacteria and archaea, same kind or not?]]

I’m not al lthat familiar with all the obscure classifications of Baraminology, and would need to take a long time looking all those up- tracing down lineages etc- if you want to know, please do the work yourself unless you are leading up to a relevent point and need the answers?

[[KIND s a useless word because it gives no rules by which it can be applied. It is a weasel word that lets you change the definition to fit your argument.]]

Oh really? Didn’t read any of that link provided Eh? No rules? lol- it’s nothing BUT rules- but you and coyote can scoff at it if you like- meanwhile I’ll scoff at the equally problem riddled Phylogentic classification system and call it all kinds of ugly names and accuse anyone who beleives in it because it supports their particular dogma driven opinions in return, fair enough?